Correcting the AIDS Lies

AIDS dissent is largely based on misunderstanding and misinformation. It is arguably costing lives. This is one attempt to try to collate all relevant facts in one place, so that no-one need die of ignorance.

WWW AIDSMYTH.BLOGSPOT.COM

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

I'm astonished, although I shouldn't be, that the dissident fold has not only tried to rebut the Padian article on AIDStruth, but has done so by simply repeating the same tired lies, and indeed with some of them not even reading the Padian article...!

A quote from the Barnesworld site:

"Padian could be an outlier, but are there other epidemiological studies that show higher rates of transmission?"

Oh my God.

Padian did indeed find transmission events, just not in that specific study. She quotes several papers outlining HIV transmission risks, some of which she herself was involved with. One of them documents infection risk of up to 20% per exposure!

Do these people even bother to read what it is they're criticising? Also I hear repeatedly the myth that these couples were followed for 10 years. THAT IS FALSE!

It was a 10 year study but, on average, the couples were followed for less than 7 months each.

Yes, less than 7 (seven) months each.

442 couples, 3000 couple-months of data, 6.8 months per couple. It's staring them in the face. Would 10 years of no seroconversions in a huge study be interesting? Sure. But that would be over 53,000 couple-months of data. 6-7 months of no seroconversions, in a study population told to use condoms and practise safe sex, is that interesting? Not really. It just says that prevention works. Padian herself says that "The sentence in the Abstract [about no seroconversions] reflects this success -- nothing more, nothing less."

I see from the comments at Barnesworld that many are suggesting the article is mere "info-ganda", which ironically is precisely what the dissidents use to spread their ideas. The sad fact is, for many of these dissidents, that these are plain simple truths supported by solid evidence that cannot be refuted. HIV is spread sexually and causes AIDS. In comparison the dissident myths are a house of cards and, as this site and others repeatedly demonstrates, it comes down with the slightest breeze.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

The 1997 paper by Nancy Padian (Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Northern California: results from a ten-year study) is often selectively quoted by dissidents in an attempt to convince their readers (and perhaps themselves) that HIV is not transmissible through sex. They quote a single line from the abstract, without taking the time to read or comprehend the actual study aim:

"Over time, the authors observed increased condom use (p < 0.001) and no new infections."

But the point of the paper wasn't to see if HIV could be sexually transmitted - that was already known! The research was aimed at showing that with counselling HIV transmission might be stopped, and it was.

There are several studies that show that HIV is transmitted through sexual intercourse, with increasing risks for oral, vaginal and anal sex respectively. Examples include

In a move that is highly unusual, Dr Padian actually took the time to respond directly to the dissidents who are misrepresenting her work, and suggesting that Padian herself is either tactitly acknowledging that HIV cannot be transmitted sexually, or that her work is ignored by the mainstream in our "ignorance" of the science.

Dr Padian demolishes both those suggestions in this article at AIDStruth.org.

It's about time that a researcher who's work has been so abused by the dissident camp stood up for what it actually meant and put something, however succinct, into print so that the issue can be dropped once and for all.

Who am I?

I sometimes find people asking about me online, often on forums I cannot reply to. Here's the scoop.

My name is Nick Bennett (so when I post as "Bennett" I am posting under my real name).

I am a double-doctor, MD and PhD. My PhD research was in the molecular biology of HIV. I've debated the HIV/AIDS dissidents since mid-1998, and frankly I consider that a better qualification to be here doing this than anything else.

I have never received funding from any pharmaceutical company that makes HIV antivirals. I do not get and have not ever been paid to do this.

I am currently working as a fellow in pediatric infectious disease. My salary is paid by New York State.

I have this site to stop the spread of misinformation, mostly about HIV and AIDS but also about the accompanying scientific research.

I try to respond to all comments, but cannot guarantee when! I'm a busy little beaver a lot of the time. Besides, this site is intended more as an info portal than a discussion group.